Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

Bale Bale Bale

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,444
Yes, it was. Spurs had a free header that went wide from the corner that Tony M got sent off
The goal kick had already been taken, by the time the camera cuts back to the game de Gea had received the ball back from one of the defenders.
 

Snow

Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
31,904
Location
Lousy Smarch weather
Add the Bruno penalty to a list of inconsistent decisions. Newcastle keeper was much further out than De Gea was when he saved it against Palace yet no retake. Regardless of the De Gea retake, refs specifically tell the keepers not to move from the line ahead of every penalty so it's something they really should be consistently calling correctly.
 

Bale Bale Bale

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,444
Add the Bruno penalty to a list of inconsistent decisions. Newcastle keeper was much further out than De Gea was when he saved it against Palace yet no retake. Regardless of the De Gea retake, refs specifically tell the keepers not to move from the line ahead of every penalty so it's something they really should be consistently calling correctly.
Darlow kept one foot on the line.
 

Snow

Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
31,904
Location
Lousy Smarch weather
Darlow kept one foot on the line.
Weird how the FA have different laws than the rest of the world. FIFA laws just state differently. They also state that a keeper cannot stand behind the law and that's something we frequently see.

In any case, Darlow stood further out than De Gea when he saved the penalty which surely shows the absurdity of that specific rule at a minimum.
 

Dave Smith

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
340
I'm not trying to solve the issue of mm offside calls. The nature of the law means a line has to be drawn somewhere, at some point you go from being onside to being offside, even if it's by one mm. At least this would give some measure of advantage to the attacker and not disallow a goal because a toe, shoulder or nose is offside. I think people would be happier if they could see a whole body part being offside as the reason a call was given.
The problem then however would be that everyone feels hard done by when their is a 'stud' offside. The offside rule in a VAR world is harsh and favours defenders however that was the reason it was implemented in the first place in 1863.

Further, the current rule is clear cut, if you start allowing divergence from this then you start getting into interpretation which means that you'll get different decisions from everyone. The problems with VAR atm are the time it takes and the technology (as I am not sure it can actually do what it is supposed to as camera frame rates are still not high enough.) However, that doesn't require law changes to offside.
 

MikeKing

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
4,163
Supports
Bournemouth
The problem then however would be that everyone feels hard done by when their is a 'stud' offside. The offside rule in a VAR world is harsh and favours defenders however that was the reason it was implemented in the first place in 1863.

Further, the current rule is clear cut, if you start allowing divergence from this then you start getting into interpretation which means that you'll get different decisions from everyone. The problems with VAR atm are the time it takes and the technology (as I am not sure it can actually do what it is supposed to as camera frame rates are still not high enough.) However, that doesn't require law changes to offside.
You sure about this? The technology is there. Usually pitches have a lot of light so I think you can get away with a lot without much motion blur. If you had a dedicated camera for decisions it would be easier, but I do think you can freeze frame pretty much anything without motion blur these days if you have enough light. Shouldn't be a problem.

On topic: What the actual feck? Couldn't believe my eyes when VAR decided not to retake the penalty? Corrupt fecks, I also totally predicted this.
 

ghaliboy

Snitches on Tom Hagen
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
10,959
Location
Sydchester
So is the keepers diving off their line thing just gone now? After the ridiculous DdG penalty early in the season where he was like a microscopic atom off his line and it was called back? :lol:
 

Berbasbullet

Full Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
7,513
So is the keepers diving off their line thing just gone now? After the ridiculous DdG penalty early in the season where he was like a microscopic atom off his line and it was called back? :lol:
Tbf the keeper in our match had his back foot on the line, however there was encroaching in the box!
 

redevul5566

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
32
Supports
I also support Real Mallorca.
No it's not. There is a margin of error for the software. It's this misconception that skews the whole thing. The software is not accurate enough to justify this type of decision-making.
Now you know how other teams feel when you got away from VAR
 

Sad Chris

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2014
Messages
1,634
I think the refs face when he gave our penalty after reviewing it sums it up nicely. He looked how I felt: „Geeeezus, this shouldn‘t be given but I‘m forced to make a call that’s based upon the drivel that is forced on me from above.“

Micromanaging has always sucked and always will.
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
9,886
It's a joke. He's clearly not gaining an advantage because his fecking hand is further forward

It's a joke.
That’s not new though. We’ve had no problem with players “coming from an offside position” being deemed offside despite it meaning that they’ve stepped back onside before receiving the ball and thus negating any advantage of the offside position (apart from escaping a marker or blindsiding the defender).

Now, because we have technology to find the tight offsides everyone’s going mental over the same thing.
 

jungledrums

Full Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
2,453
The 3D imaging is on point so the lines will always be straight, the vertical lines always vertical and the parallel lines always parallel.

As far as I'm aware they still have to manually select the offside point though. Which is where the armpit offsides came from, as that was a point on the body they could measure from consistently. Obviously they weren't actually counting the armpit but rather using that as the reference point for where the arm (which you couldn't be offside from) met the body (which you could)

But that had to change when the top part of the arm was no longer deemed to be incapable of playing the ball. So I'm guessing they now use the badge on the arm as the reference point.
This is why it’s stupid - what if a player wears an over/under sized shirt? Sounds ridiculous to even ask that question, but wouldn’t the size of the shirt make a material difference in terms of the starting point? What a cluster feck.
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
9,886
I thought DdG had his on the line as well? :lol:

That’s his glove. Both his feet were off the line by five inches or so.
Newcastle’s keeper had one foot on the line so it shouldn’t have been retaken.

Their outfield player was leaning into the box but his feet were not planted inside the box, which makes it okay after a rule change ahead of this season.

I really wish that people actually watched the images they’re commenting on and knew the rules before they screamed about conspiracies and technology being shit. I think that VAR has exposed a few of the rules as not doing what they were intended to do (for example, I’d change the offside law so that it’s not offside if a player is offside when ball is played but is stationary or moving towards own goal and is onside once he’s receiving the ball), but moaning about keeper encroachment or Liverpool’s offsides (who both were correct according to the rules in place right now) and playing the conspiracy card based on those specific incidents just makes people look silly.
 

McGrathsipan

Full Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
15,560
That’s not new though. We’ve had no problem with players “coming from an offside position” being deemed offside despite it meaning that they’ve stepped back onside before receiving the ball and thus negating any advantage of the offside position (apart from escaping a marker or blindsiding the defender).

Now, because we have technology to find the tight offsides everyone’s going mental over the same thing.
Someone in an offside position that steps back is giving a defender a choice and thats surely interfering with play. Someone's knob tip as VAR is ruling on is just silly
 

Berbasbullet

Full Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
7,513
I thought DdG had his on the line as well? :lol:

Yeah that’s what they called him on, frustrating though if they are going to be that pedantic then surely the newcastle players in the box call a retake?
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
9,886
Yeah that’s what they called him on, frustrating though if they are going to be that pedantic then surely the newcastle players in the box call a retake?
Newcastle players did not encroach. No feet planted in the box. Leaning inside is now allowed. Rule change.

Read up on the rules or stop crying conspiracy ffs.
 

Josep Dowling

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
5,135
I thought DdG had his on the line as well? :lol:

We got totally done over that game. If Fergie was in charge he would have gone in on the decisions after the game. Can’t remember who was referee but it was obvious that call was made simply because it was the first game of the season. They won’t bother with implementing the rule for the rest of the season.
 

Berbasbullet

Full Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
7,513

Newcastle players did not encroach. No feet planted in the box. Leaning inside is now allowed. Rule change.

Read up on the rules or stop crying conspiracy ffs.
Not sure why you’re showing me the DDG penalty as again all that proves is how pedantic that decision is, however if they’re consistent i don’t mind the decision.

if you look closely newcastle players right foot appears to be in the box when it’s taken. I’d post an image if I knew how, it’s very tight though, I am happy to be corrected on this though as it’s really close but from what I saw his foot was in the box.

Show me where I cried conspiracy, don’t put words in my mouth, not crying conspiracy I’m crying crap refereeing at the highest level, which has been doing my head in for too long. :lol:

The word you’re looking for is petty! Which I am 100% being.
 
Last edited:

Listar

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
1,017
Wow Steve Bruce is such a sore loser. Moaning about the flag not raised when Rashford was onside that resulted in his keeper getting injured. I’m not sure what his point was? Better to have the decision made wrong to make sure his keeper won’t be hurt?
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
22,188
This is why it’s stupid - what if a player wears an over/under sized shirt? Sounds ridiculous to even ask that question, but wouldn’t the size of the shirt make a material difference in terms of the starting point? What a cluster feck.
Tbf that part is just me guessing based on how it looks.. They might pick the reference point some other way for all I know. But it's definitely not the armpit anymore.
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
9,886
Not sure why you’re showing me the DDG penalty as again all that proves is how pedantic that decision is, however if they’re consistent i don’t mind the decision.

if you look closely newcastle players right foot appears to be in the box when it’s taken. I’d post an image if I knew how, it’s very tight though.

Show me where I cried conspiracy, don’t put words in my mouth, not crying conspiracy I’m crying crap refereeing at the highest level.
It is a very pedantic decision, but a correct one. Our penalty yesterday not being retaken was also a correct decision but we have people here whining about one being retaken and one not.
Crying conspiracy was aimed more in general at people bemoaning correct calls and crying cheating or corruption while not even knowing the laws of the game, not specifically at you, sorry about the harsh wording.

I have looked at it and yes, his foot is inside the box and so is his body, but that is allowed under the new rules as long as the foot isn’t planted in the box. That law will probably get changed again once someone realizes that you can run up to the box and be mid-air and do a 4m jump into the box as long as your feet aren’t on the ground as the ball is struck.
 

Red00012

Full Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
4,016
Wow Steve Bruce is such a sore loser. Moaning about the flag not raised when Rashford was onside that resulted in his keeper getting injured. I’m not sure what his point was? Better to have the decision made wrong to make sure his keeper won’t be hurt?
The most frustrating part of that was we didn’t attempt any shot for 15-20 mins when we know he was injured . Would I be right in saying after that every shot that was on target ended up in the back of the net ?
 

Berbasbullet

Full Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
7,513
It is a very pedantic decision, but a correct one. Our penalty yesterday not being retaken was also a correct decision but we have people here whining about one being retaken and one not.
Crying conspiracy was aimed more in general at people bemoaning correct calls and crying cheating or corruption while not even knowing the laws of the game, not specifically at you, sorry about the harsh wording.

I have looked at it and yes, his foot is inside the box and so is his body, but that is allowed under the new rules as long as the foot isn’t planted in the box. That law will probably get changed again once someone realizes that you can run up to the box and be mid-air and do a 4m jump into the box as long as your feet aren’t on the ground as the ball is struck.
His foot is on the ground isn’t it? I dunno, doesn’t matter to be honest.

I’m looking forward to seeing everyone acting like high jumpers and launching themselves into the box. :lol:
 

B20

HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
24,439
Location
Disney Land
Supports
Liverpool
You sure about this? The technology is there. Usually pitches have a lot of light so I think you can get away with a lot without much motion blur. If you had a dedicated camera for decisions it would be easier, but I do think you can freeze frame pretty much anything without motion blur these days if you have enough light. Shouldn't be a problem.

On topic: What the actual feck? Couldn't believe my eyes when VAR decided not to retake the penalty? Corrupt fecks, I also totally predicted this.
50 fps according to Hackett, who is criticising them for not operating with proper margin of error:
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spo...eree-var-error-liverpool-everton-19122445.amp
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
22,188
Not sure what Hackett means when he says "The hand/arm up to the underside of the armpit is not a part of the body that can score". Either he's referring to the rule as it was last year (in which case it's irrelevant) or he's correctly referring to the rule this year (in which case it was applied correctly on the Mane offside and is irrelevant to any complaints).

And if the cameras they use are 50fps then the PL really do have some explaining to do given higher frame rate cameras have been used for offside in other football competitions such as the women's world cup. They also use 320fps+ cameras in other sports. Hell, even the PL themselves use much higher frame rate cameras for goal-line tech as is. All provided by the same company, Hawk-Eye. So why they would randomly use much worse cameras for offsides, I have no idea. Seems unlikely to me.

Regardless though, it's the same camera used for everyone and even at 50fps would be a massive improvement in accuracy on judging by the naked eye. So if the alternative is to go back to having those same marginal calls made with less accuracy then that's hardly a recommendation, nor grounds for less subjectivity or bias (which the likes of Henderson seem to be alleging).
 

Mike Phelan's Former Tash

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
209
If your feet are onside it should be onside, even if leaning forward. It is 'football' after all.

Handballs should be determined as deliberate to be given.

Use the VAR to help decide these.

Simple.
 

hasanejaz88

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
2,848
Location
Munich
Supports
Germany
It’s either off or on. It’s a fact.

Nothing ridiculous about it at all, just sour grapes and frustration from those to moan. I’ll also moan when it goes against my team but it’s not unfair.

cricket and tennis have gone through this transformation and no one complains about close calls anymore. Football needs to adjust quickly else it’s just wasted energy moaning about it.
Not completely true about cricket, they still have the 50% hitting the stumps rule specifically because of uncertainty regarding the trajectory of the ball after it hits the pad and therefore only overturn the umpire on clear and obvious (i.e more than 50% of the ball hitting the stumps).

Regarding offside, I hate this strict implementation and how it's being used throughout Europe. I think it should still only be for clear and obvious and when after using lines you still can't completely judge whether it's a clear offside or not, you should stick with the on-field referee. The issue with sticking with the VAR lines is that the decision is heavily dependent on where the line is placed, if the line is moved 1 mm in either direction then it can effect the decision. The line is placed by the VAR official and therefore there isn't 100% certainty that the line is placed accurately, whether it is actually at the base of the foot or slightly beyond/behind.

Similarly, frame rates can make an impact on when the ball is hit by the teammate passing. Many doubts that I think should restrict the surety regarding offside decisions from VAR.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
22,188
Couldn't they have something in all the balls to "feel". Seems like there is room for error in this method.

I realise im asking a question you probably cant answer in fairness.

Alwell, at least it happened to Liverpool, twice.
As it happens I just read that FIFA are actually working on an automated GPS offside system and that type of sensor is part of it. Their plan is to switch to that type of system over coming seasons.

https://www.fifa.com/who-we-are/new...-demonstration-of-advanced-offside-technology

This is one of the reasons I've never got the vociferous complaints about offsides. Of all the decisions VAR make, these are the ones most easily improved by advancing technology.
 

Flying high

Full Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
744
As it happens I just read that FIFA are actually working on an automated GPS offside system and that type of sensor is part of it. Their plan is to switch to that type of system over coming seasons.

https://www.fifa.com/who-we-are/new...-demonstration-of-advanced-offside-technology

This is one of the reasons I've never got the vociferous complaints about offsides. Of all the decisions VAR make, these are the ones most easily improved by advancing technology.
Great. Now let's put VAR back in its box until it's ready to use.
 

MikeKing

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
4,163
Supports
Bournemouth
As it happens I just read that FIFA are actually working on an automated GPS offside system and that type of sensor is part of it. Their plan is to switch to that type of system over coming seasons.

https://www.fifa.com/who-we-are/new...-demonstration-of-advanced-offside-technology

This is one of the reasons I've never got the vociferous complaints about offsides. Of all the decisions VAR make, these are the ones most easily improved by advancing technology.
Yay! We've been calling out for this to happen for a while.

50 fps according to Hackett, who is criticising them for not operating with proper margin of error:
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spo...eree-var-error-liverpool-everton-19122445.amp
I thought most sports were filmed on 120fps these days, certainly football. That is why you can see those incredibly slow replays at times. Why they don't use the same technology for VAR, I'm not sure. I must believe their system has camera recordings logged in the same system with an internal clock. So footage of all different angles could be rewinded and played back at the same time, the timing wont change on those frames as everything is filmed in real time. So you should be able to interchange between angles and use any footage available without any confusion about timing. See what I'm saying? You freeze one picture (when the ball is being hit) and the other clips freeze at the exact same moment, you then go to the best available angle for the situation to see if someone was offside.

I don't trust VAR people and refs, but the technology is available or at least possible so no excuses.
 

mancan92

Full Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
8,279
Location
Loughborough university
Add the Bruno penalty to a list of inconsistent decisions. Newcastle keeper was much further out than De Gea was when he saved it against Palace yet no retake. Regardless of the De Gea retake, refs specifically tell the keepers not to move from the line ahead of every penalty so it's something they really should be consistently calling correctly.
Foot was on the line.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
38,977
Location
W.Yorks
Has it been worked out how VAR missed this?


I don't see how it would "only" be a high foot considering he went through with the challenge for the ball and didn't withdraw. It then becomes dangerous play.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
38,977
Location
W.Yorks
Good thread. The eredevisie method sounds absolutely nonsensical though.
I think they're going along the right lines though - just over complicating it.

They should basically just bung the line down from the defender and then the VAR bloke has 10 seconds or whatever to decide whether he thinks its offside with the naked eye. If it isn't then goal.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
22,188
Good thread. The eredevisie method sounds absolutely nonsensical though.
I think they're going along the right lines though - just over complicating it.

They should basically just bung the line down from the defender and then the VAR bloke has 10 seconds or whatever to decide whether he thinks its offside with the naked eye. If it isn't then goal.
Sounds like the semi-automated tech they're working on will render a lot of the current issues irrelevant in a few years anyway. Offside being automatically signalled to the VAR would speed things up a lot too.
 

awop

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
1,257
Location
Paris
Supports
Arsenal
Has it been worked out how VAR missed this?


I don't see how it would "only" be a high foot considering he went through with the challenge for the ball and didn't withdraw. It then becomes dangerous play.
Should have been a penalty imo. The thing is if Gabriel do a fake face clutch and drops down it is given either by the ref or VAR. If he play it fair, he's shafted and it's forgotten.